Goodbye BCS

[BigBadVol]

People are just becoming more apt to staying in, being anti social and watching the game on their big 60" TV's. Attendance to any games especially bowls will continue to slide unless ticket prices match the decreased demand.

Hit the nail on the head. Exactly. But one correction, most are going with the 72" screen.

 

[GreveHaller]

sure they did. A small market team traveling any distance won't put fans in the seats. Even top schools playing for a conf championship struggle

Sadly, this is more fans than at a Jags game

 

[bamawriter]

Watching the lousy attendance at most bowl games shows how this mad rush to the playoffs has deteriorated the NCAA post-season. I'm in the minority, but I don't like it.

Bowl attendance started declining at the advent of the BCS. The playoff talk didn't change the trajectory.

 

[FBtime]

The BCS was a fine enough system, but I think after the first 8 years it became pretty evident that a playoff system was going to come into fruition.

While a 4 team playoff is new and interesting, I really think they dropped the ball by not making it a 6 team playoff system. With a 6 team playoff your #1 and #2 seed get the bye in the first playoff week, then play the winners of the previous weeks match (seed 3-6) and the winner of that game plays for the championship. The seeds would be the conference champions from the big 5 conferences, then 1 for a mid-major or another deserving team (like say, a one loss SEC team). Would make a lot more sense IMO.

Too few teams for byes imo. That's too much of an advantage for a 3rd of the field. Make it 8 teams, no byes. That's the perfect size to me.

 

[Boca Vol]

The BCS as a whole was pretty stupid.

The only game that mattered was the championship game. The others were pretty much meaningless outside of some decent match-ups here and there. But they didn't mean more than the Chick-fil-A or Music City Bowls...except for the payout.

 

[bamawriter]

The BCS as a whole was pretty stupid.

The only game that mattered was the championship game. The others were pretty much meaningless outside of some decent match-ups here and there. But they didn't mean more than the Chick-fil-A or Music City Bowls...except for the payout.

This. Coupled with too many bowls, all with conference tie-ins, and the bowl season has been rendered meaningless outside of one game.

 

[oregonvol]

I think I will miss the BCS. Before the BCS, #1 hardly ever met #2 at the end, so the sports media had alot more power in determining who they wanted to be national champions. This usually favored the Big Ten or Notre Dame. They could play lesser bowl opponents and still be crowned champs by the media.

The BCS ended that. The media still had some say, but it was a far more transparent process, so their role was greatly diminished. They would have loved for Ohio State to not have to play Florida in 2006 and just crowned them champs with a win over a weak Pac 10 team in the Rose Bowl, but they couldn't do it. Likewise, an unbeaten Notre Dame had to play a 1 loss Alabama team last year rather than some weaker opponent, which would have happened before the BCS. I think the BCS ultimately got it right every year, save 2004.

Now we go to a playoff, which the media has been clamoring for, because it gives them alot of power back, since they will influence more teams' chances (and since it is more of a judgement call as to who is 3-4 vs. who is 1-2). Sure the same unbeaten BCS conference teams will get in at the top, but now the media may be able to get their 2 loss USC or 1 loss Michigan in there too, if possible. There's far more wiggle room to give preferential treatment to schools in bigger media markets or simply those the more influential sports media members prefer. And as the playoffs inevitably expand, that influence will inevitably grow.

Of course, I guess the hope is that the playoff format and the concept of more teams "settling it on the field" will lead to a somewhat more decisive champion (though, like I said before, I feel like the BCS has gotten it right pretty much every year, so I am not sure how much better it can be). But playoffs have their own set of challenges. They don't necessarily decide the best team so much as the team that is playing best at the end. Were the Ravens really the best team in the NFL last year or did they get hot at the right time? There are lots of ways to determine a champion. In the English Premier League there are no playoffs, it's purely based on your record over the course of the season, so it judges the sum total of your accomplishments and failures. I think many methods are valid and all methods are debatable. There is no perfect method. I do wonder how the playoff format (which will almost certainly be expanded to more games in the future) will benefit, say a team in the Big Ten who has played a weak regular season and may have fewer injuries and better rested players for a 3-4 game playoff stretch at the end.

 

[Eddie Vol Halen]

I do wonder how the playoff format (which will almost certainly be expanded to more games in the future) will benefit, say a team in the Big Ten who has played a weak regular season and may have fewer injuries and better rested players for a 3-4 game playoff stretch at the end.

I was thinking that this bowl season. It seemed all of the SEC teams had some glaring injury problems this bowl season.

 

[K-town Vol Fan]

I'm glad to see the playoffs implemented but there will be controversy every year because there will almost always be some weak team who never plays anyone who feels like they should be in and at left out. Look at this season. If there were a 4 team playoff who gets in? Obviously FSU and Auburn but then who? Another one loss Sec team? Bama, USC, Missouri? What about Michigan state?

Its almost inevitable that the 4 teams will expand to 8 and then maybe expand more. Then we will just have 2-4 power conferences instead a bunch like we have now and it will look a lot like the NFL playoff system. This is obviously looking way ahead in the future but I think that's what this is moving toward.

 

[bamawriter]

I'm glad to see the playoffs implemented but there will be controversy every year because there will almost always be some weak team who never plays anyone who feels like they should be in and at left out. Look at this season. If there were a 4 team playoff who gets in? Obviously FSU and Auburn but then who? Another one loss Sec team? Bama, USC, Missouri? What about Michigan state?

I don't think there would have been a whole lot of controversey this year. It would have been #1 FSU vs. #4 Michigan State, and #2 Auburn vs #3 Alabama. Maybe they would have bumped Michigan State to the third seed because they won their conference. But Stanford would have been on the outside looking in because of the baffling loss to Utah.

 

[tnprogrammer]

The fact that Condalisa Rice is on the committee already has me wondering what the hell the committee is thinking. If she is qualified, then so is every member on Volnation. What. A. Joke.

While I believe Rice is an extremely intelligent person I don't know what the heck she knows about college football. With the BCS weekly formula gone, how are they going to rank teams from week to week? It really shouldn't be that hard at the end of the year. Just take the 4 top ranked teams. I don't really understand what the committee is needed for.

If they are concerned about too many teams from one conference being in the playoffs, just make it a rule that in order to be in the four team playoff you have to win your conference championship. That way you just take the top four conference champions. I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favor of doing it that way, because I think you want the four BEST TEAMS in the country in the playoffs. Heck, the loser of the SEC championship may still be good enough to be one of the top four teams in the country.

 

[bamawriter]

While I believe Rice is an extremely intelligent person I don't know what the heck she knows about college football. With the BCS weekly formula gone, how are they going to rank teams from week to week? It really shouldn't be that hard at the end of the year. Just take the 4 top ranked teams. I don't really understand what the committee is needed for.

They members of the committee are capable of keeping their own weekly rankings. It'd be no different than what they're doing now, minus the computers. And anything minus the computers is a superior method.

 

[oregonvol]

I was thinking that this bowl season. It seemed all of the SEC teams had some glaring injury problems this bowl season.

But a single game is alot different than a 3 game stretch. And as the playoffs expand, the games will almost certainly be moved closer to the regular season (to avoid competition with NFL playoffs), meaning less recovery time.

 

[JonGrudensAgent]

May as well just go ahead and expand the playoff to 24 teams like the FCS does and include all the conference champs along with at large bids to fill out the bracket.

Of course, they would probably have to cut out a significant number of bowl games and the conference championships to fit the schedule and there is no way that happens given the money that would be lost.

This playoff committee is going to be just as subjective as the BCS or anything else.

There will never be a 100 % foolproof way to absolutely determine the best team in the country without a full on playoff bracket.

 

[Other_Guy]

I don't understand why we need a committee. Why can't it be the top 4 AP teams?

 

[Volumnus 2011]

The BCS may have gotten it right, but who is to say that other teams didn't deserve a chance? In 2006, a one loss Florida team jumped the one loss Michigan team because they got beat by the number one team in the nation (Ohio State).

Florida trounced OSU, so what makes everyone believe OSU deserved to be there. What if another 1 loss team deserved a chance at Florida for the title?

In 07, a two-loss LSU team beat down a number-one ranked OSU team. Who is to say Ohio State deserved to be there that year?

This year, Auburn played FSU. Who is to say Auburn was the second-best team? Personally, I feel like if Auburn played Alabama 10 times, Alabama would win nine of them. Saban made a very costly error at the end of that game. With a playoff, I think Alabama wins another championship this year.

With a playoff all along, I think OSU maybe doesn't even play for a title in 06 and 07.

So, how do you know the BCS got it right?

 

[tnprogrammer]

They members of the committee are capable of keeping their own weekly rankings. It'd be no different than what they're doing now, minus the computers. And anything minus the computers is a superior method.

So you're saying that the subjective opinions of a bunch of biased people is better than having an empirical formula for deciding rankings? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Rudy123]

What are your thoughts on the end of the BCS? Are you glad the BCS is over with?

Anybody else on here feel like the playoff committee will be a joke?

If your goal of getting rid of the BCS is to make things fair, then you will be disappointed.

There are too many teams in the NCAA to have a system where it is fair for everyone.

Let's suppose that your team is 5th in the pecking order and gets left out of the 4 team play off system. You will make an argument that your schedule was more difficult than one of the other teams schedule, therefore you should be one of the four teams. Such as we get left out of the play off but Boise State gets in.

Scenerio # 2. You are the 5th team, so you get left out, but you beat one of the teams that is in the play offs. Suppose LSU gets in the 4 team play off system, but we are #5, but we beat LSU during the regular season.

Scenerio # 3. Lets suppose we are the 5th team and we miss the 4 team play off system. However; one of the teams that is in it, doesn't have a conference championship game, like we do. So, we played 12 games in the regular season but we lost the S.E.C. championship game. But B.Y.U. is in and they only played 12 games and no conference championship game.


This will give the NCAA addition games to play in a tournament round. This means more money for them....

System will never be fair for everyone.. So, if making things fair is your goal, you will be dissappointed....

 

[bamawriter]

So you're saying that the subjective opinions of a bunch of biased people is better than having an empirical formula for deciding rankings? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The computers are freaking awful. Every disaster, or near-disaster, during the BCS era was thanks to the computers. There is no formula that can accurately weight the significance of any particular game between any particular teams. It's one of the most flawed thought processes ever.

 

[tnprogrammer]

I truly believe that once the 'powers that be' see how much revenue and fan interest these playoff games generate they will be falling all over themselves to expand it. After all...the post season is really all about the money anyway.

 

[bamawriter]

I don't understand why we need a committee. Why can't it be the top 4 AP teams?

The AP doesn't want their poll used in an official capacity.

But it could be the top four in the Harris Poll and I'd be okay with it.

 

[Remy]

Good riddance BCS! The Big 10 and eastern block of sportswriters had figured out a way to game the system and return Notre Dame and OSU to false prominence. The Domers being down >20 points in the 1st quarter of the actual NC game they had no business being in and OSU having a defense the past 2 years that couldn't stop a good high school team ranked in the top 5 and finally getting exposed by Michigan State is evidence to support my opinion.

 

[tnprogrammer]

The computers are freaking awful. Every disaster, or near-disaster, during the BCS era was thanks to the computers. There is no formula that can accurately weight the significance of any particular game between any particular teams. It's one of the most flawed thought processes ever.

The final outcome has always been an amalgamation of human AND computer rankings. You're saying that in an unfavorable outcome the fault lies with the computer formula and NOT with the human decisions that were calculated along WITH the computer outcome. With the computer formula you can see ABSOLUTELY why the decision is what it is. If you don't like the outcome you have to blame the human factors as much as the formula.

 

[bamawriter]

The final outcome has always been an amalgamation of human AND computer rankings. You're saying that in an unfavorable outcome the fault lies with the computer formula and NOT with the human decisions that were calculated along WITH the computer outcome. With the computer formula you can see ABSOLUTELY why the decision is what it is. If you don't like the outcome you have to blame the human factors as much as the formula.

Clemson and Vanderbilt both beat Georgia at home in 2013. Clemson beat UGA in week 1, when UGA was as healthy as they could possibly be. Vanderbilt defeated UGA in week 8, when the dawgs had become a complete MASH unit. In every single computer formula used in the BCS, Vanderbilt's victory was mathematically equal to Clemson's.

That, along with thousands upon thousands of similar situations, is why trying to develop a forumla to compare the outcomes of sporting events for the sake of determining a champion is freaking stupid.

And no, the humans do not share equal blame. A human could look at those two games and use common sense to give Clemson more credit for a better win than Vandy.

 

[volfan1231]

Clemson and Vanderbilt both beat Georgia at home in 2013. Clemson beat UGA in week 1, when UGA was as healthy as they could possibly be. Vanderbilt defeated UGA in week 8, when the dawgs had become a complete MASH unit. In every single computer formula used in the BCS, Vanderbilt's victory was mathematically equal to Clemson's.

That, along with thousands upon thousands of similar situations, is why trying to develop a forumla to compare the outcomes of sporting events for the sake of determining a champion is freaking stupid.

And no, the humans do not share equal blame. A human could look at those two games and use common sense to give Clemson more credit for a better win than Vandy.

I sat and watched the entire Discover Orange Bowl and all the announcers wanted to talk about was "How great Ohio St is."

They never gave Clemson any credit other than the times they said "This is a great game" or when they mentioned Boyd or Watkins... I agree with you 100% on the Georgia losses and the fact they shouldn't be looked at equally.

The board isn't going to be any better if it's got a committee full of biased people.